home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ kermit.columbia.edu / kermit.columbia.edu.tar / kermit.columbia.edu / newsgroups / misc.19980424-19980901 / 000150_news@newsmaster….columbia.edu _Fri May 29 12:28:22 1998.msg < prev    next >
Internet Message Format  |  1998-08-31  |  2KB
  1. Return-Path: <news@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
  2. Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.30])
  3.     by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA24425
  4.     for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Fri, 29 May 1998 12:28:21 -0400 (EDT)
  5. Received: (from news@localhost)
  6.     by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA02950
  7.     for kermit.misc@watsun; Fri, 29 May 1998 12:28:20 -0400 (EDT)
  8. Path: news.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!gondor!newshub.sdsu.edu!news.sgi.com!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.wli.net!ais.net!news.msfc.nasa.gov!info.usuhs.mil!news.monroe.army.mil!wrdiss1.robins.af.mil!wpdiss1.wpafb.af.mil!oodiss1.hill.af.mil!news.cc.utah.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!ivie
  9. From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie)
  10. Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc,comp.sys.hp48
  11. Subject: Re: Kermit on the HP48 (Was: One-Way Transfer)
  12. Message-ID: <3FmrftJsqL4F@cc.usu.edu>
  13. Date: 26 May 98 09:39:21 MDT
  14. References: <35646665.EBB3868B@theriver.com> <wk67iy1b8j.fsf@jhuapl.edu> <6kc4vm$ssl$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
  15. Organization: Utah State University
  16. Lines: 18
  17. Xref: news.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:8814 comp.sys.hp48:81598
  18.  
  19. In article <6kc4vm$ssl$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) writes:
  20. > No good deed goes unpunished.  The conservative original design of the
  21. > protocol (to protect users from nontransparent connections) resulted in 
  22. > so much heckling from the ZMODEM contingent that we now allow the user to
  23. > specify a list of control characters that may be unprefixed.  This is,
  24. > strictly speaking, in violation of the protocol definition, and as such
  25. > it is not (and, as explained previously, can not be) negotiated at the
  26. > protocol level.
  27. > 
  28. > Nevertheless, the sample code that accompanies the protocol definition
  29. > (op.cit., p.231) allows for bare control characters to be received.
  30.  
  31. What's the point in having a spec if the code, not the spec, is correct?
  32. -- 
  33. -------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
  34. Roger Ivie               | "You got advice for me. Well I'm telling you,
  35. ivie@cc.usu.edu          |  I know nothing and I like it that way"
  36. http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ |                               -- Eggplant